Hiya, As is probably obvious I don't agree with this. But I can raise it when the draft gets to IETF LC, so we don't need to bang on about it.
On 26/01/2019 17:40, John R Levine wrote: > After reading all the discussion I posted an -02 which takes out all > mention of ESNI. Here's why. > > The most important issue is process. ESNI is currently described only > in an early I-D which will not turn into an RFC for a long time. If I > reference it, this draft will be stuck behind ESNI, also for a long > time. If I don't, this draft should be able to progress quickly. Once > it's published, if you want to add an ESNI clause, you can do so by > expert review, no RFC needed. An informative reference is all that'd be needed and wouldn't hold up your draft at all. The above is bogus unless you make the ESNI I-D a normative reference, which a) you didn't do in the -01 draft and b) isn't needed as you wanted to avoid 2119 terms. > > More substantively, I would be surprised if any MTA ever implements ESNI > because it makes no sense for mail. On the web, different hostnames > lead to different web sites, and clients expect the name in the TLS cert > to match the hostname in the request. In mail, we've never expected the > name of the MTA to match the domain of the recpient, and it is quite > normal for a million different domains to point their MXes at the same > host with the same name, e.g. aspmx.l.google.com. > > If you don't want your SNI to give anything away, you just do what mail > systems have done all along, use the same MX names for everyone. > There's no problem for ESNI to solve and certainly no reason to go to > the effort to put all the ESNI glop in the DNS. I don't accept the above paras demonstrate sound logic, but we can debate it when you get to IETF LC. Cheers, S. > > Regards, > John Levine, [email protected], Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY > Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly > > _______________________________________________ > Uta mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
